Shamsher vs State Of U.P.
2018 Latest Caselaw 175 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

A.F.R.
 
Reserved
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 34 of 1988
 
Appellant :- Shamsher
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- P.N. Misra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.

Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Harsh Kumar, J.)

The present appeal has been filed by sole accused/convict Shamsher against the judgment and order of conviction passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Bareilly in S.T. No.298 of 1986, under Section 302 I.P.C., Case Crime No.163 of 1986, P.S. Baradari, District Bareilly, convicting the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him with rigorous imprisonment for life.

The brief facts relating to the appeal are that Smt. Ramshree wife of Gulab Singh lodged a F.I.R. at 10:00 p.m. on 17.3.1986 with the allegations that "she lives with her brother-in-law (Jeth) Sita Ram in Mohalla Chak Mahmood, P.S. Baradari, District Bareilly and her husband Gulab Singh is in service at Moradabad; that her sister-in-law (Jethani) Smt. Kalawati and uncle-in-law (Chachia Sasur) Nand Lal runs a tea-stall at Dohna Railway Station; that today she was at home with her daughter Uma Rani @ Nanhi, Jeth and his son Ranu and the lantern and lamp were on; that in the neighbourhood her daughter Rani lives with her husband Shamsher Singh, son-in-law (Damad) of applicant; that today at about 9:00 p.m. her son-in-law committed mar-pit with her daughter Rani on which her Jeth went to the house of Rani where her son-in-law was present; that her Jeth admonished her son-in-law for committing mar-pit with her daughter and since she was weeping, her Jeth Sita Ram entered into hot talks and in rage of anger also slapped her son-in-law and returned to home and went to bed; that after a while at about 9:30 p.m. her son-in-law armed with knife came to her house saying her Jeth as to how he dared to slap him and that he will not spare him and gave knife blows on his head and neck due to which when her Jeth tried to get up, he felled on the ground and died; that the incident of stabbing was seen by her, her daughter Uma Rani and Ranu, son of Sita Ram (deceased) in the light of lantern and lamp; that upon alarm raised by them neighbours arrived there and seen Shamsher running with the knife; that dead body of her Jeth is lying in the room."

The above F.I.R. was written upon submission of written report by first informant Smt. Ramshree which was got scribed by her from Dr. P.C. Kamal. The case was registered at Case Crime No.163 of 1986 and the I.O. after preparing memo of blood stained mattress, blood stained and simple earth as well as lantern and lamp taken them in his custody. After preparation of inquest report the body of deceased was sent for post-mortem and after collecting the post-mortem report and making necessary inquiry and completing the investigation, the I.O. submitted the charge-sheet against the sole accused-appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. The Magistrate after taking cognizance committed the case to Sessions Court where it was numbered as S.T. No.298 of 1986.

Upon hearing the accused-appellant the trial court framed the charges under Section 302 I.P.C. against the accused appellant, for committing murder of Sita Ram to which he denied and demanded trial.

In order to prove its case the prosecution has produced Smt. Ramshree, the first informant and eye witness of the incident as P.W.-1, Km. Uma Rani, the another eye witness as P.W.-2, Dr. S.K. Saxena, who conducted the autopsy of the body of Sita Ram (deceased) as P.W.-3 and Shiv Shanker Sharma, the I.O. as P.W.-4. After completion of prosecution evidence the statement of accused-appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and despite reasonable opportunity he did not produce any defence evidence. The learned trial court after hearing both the parties passed the impugned judgment and order holding the accused-appellant guilty for the murder of Sita Ram under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him accordingly.

We have heard Sri S.D. Jadaun, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Sri A.N. Mulla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the paper-book and record of appeal as well as that of trial court which has been summoned in appeal.

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties at length, we find that correctness of the impugned judgment and order may be considered on following points:-

(a) Place of occurrence

(b) F.I.R. being ante-timed or belated

(c) Recovery of weapon of crime

(d) Reliability of witnesses being related and interested and Non-production of material and independent witnesses

(e) Motive/False Implication

(f) Conviction if liable to be converted under Section 304 I.P.C.

As per post-mortem report Ext. A-2 and the statement of P.W.-3 Dr. S.K. Saxena, the post mortem of the body of 55 years old Sita Ram deceased was conduced at 3:00 p.m. on 18.3.1986 and the Medical Officer opined that his death had taken place about ¾ day before the post-mortem and that his death was caused as a result of shock and hemorrhage due to single ante-mortem injury of an incised wound 3 c.m. X 1.5 c.m. X cavity deep on left side base of neck from which fluid/blood was coming out. He has further stated that the injury of deceased could have been sustained with some sharp edged weapon like knife at about 9:30 p.m. on 17.3.1986 and was sufficient for causing death in ordinary course.

(a) PLACE OF OCCURRENCE

As per allegations made in F.I.R. and prosecution evidence the incident in question has taken place inside the house of first informant in the outer room adjoining courtyard as shown in site plan Ext. A-12. The accused-appellant in his cross examination with prosecution witnesses has not disputed the place of occurrence and so we find that in absence of any evidence to the contrary trial court has rightly found that occurrence in question did take place inside the house of first informant.

(b) F.I.R. BEING ANTE-TIMED

Regarding the incident in question which is alleged to have occurred at 9:30 p.m., F.I.R. has been lodged at 10:00 p.m. and considering the distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station being around 2 Kms., the F.I.R. appears to have been lodged quite promptly naming the accused. The learned Amicus Curiae for appellant has submitted that F.I.R. appears to have been prepared ante-timed but has failed to show any incriminating circumstance which may indicate so. It is pertinent to mention that the inquest report of the deceased has been prepared at 11:30 p.m. on the same night and his post-mortem has been conducted on very next day within the reasonable time which shows that the argument of F.I.R. being ante-timed has no force.

(c) RECOVERY OF WEAPON OF CRIME

Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant submitted that the weapon of crime i.e. the knife in question has neither been recovered from the possession of appellant nor has been sent to Forensic Laboratory for chemical examination, so in absence of recovery of weapon of crime the charge under Section 302 I.P.C. against the appellant is not proved.

It is not disputed that the weapon of crime, the knife in question by which the fatal injuries were allegedly caused to the deceased by appellant, has not been recovered. The prosecution has categorically mentioned in F.I.R. and prosecution witnesses have stated on oath that after causing knife injuries to the deceased, appellant ran away with the knife, hence the question of recovery of knife by the side of body of deceased does not arise. It is also noteworthy that mere for the reason that the knife could not be recovered from accused-appellant the prosecution case may not be thrown out.

(d) RELIABILITY OF WITNESSES/NON-PRODUCTION OF MATERIAL AND INDEPENDENT WITNESSES

Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant submitted that the prosecution has produced Smt. Ramshree, the first informant and her daughter Uma Rani as witnesses of fact and has failed to produce Ranu, the son of deceased, Chandra Pal, Krishna and Bhajan Lal, who allegedly followed the appellant before the incident in question as well as other villagers who are said to have arrived at the spot and seen the incident. He submitted that the first informant P.W.-1 had developed illicit relationship with deceased, and has falsely implicated the accused-appellant while her daughter has given false statement under influence of her mother, the first informant. He pointed out that in her statement on oath P.W.-1 has stated that at the time of alleged quarrel between the appellant and his wife around 100 villagers had assembled out side her house and when the accused-appellant came to the house of deceased with knife in his hand Chandrapal, Krishna and Bhajan Lal allegedly followed him, and so for non-production of above independent and material witnesses, prosecution case has not been proved and the testimony of partisan witnesses may not be relied.

The mere fact that P.W.-1 and 2 were related to the deceased may not make their testimony unreliable in view of the fact that the incident in question has taken place inside the house of first informant and no villager or neighbour can be expected to be an eye witness of the incident committed inside the house. Thee is no evidence on record to show that any of Chandrapal, Krishna and Bhajan Lal came inside the house, as P.W.-1 has stated that they stopped outside the house, so for their non-production, the prosecution case may not be adversely affected. As far as the non-production of Ranu, the son of deceased is concerned, we agree with learned A.G.A. that quality of evidence and not the quantity is material and when two eye witnesses of the occurrence have been produced, the prosecution case may not be adversely affected for non-production of Ranu, the third eye witness of same fact. It is also pertinent to mention that neither the villagers who assembled outside the house of appellant were eye witnesses of incident of slapping of accused-appellant by deceased inside his house, nor Chandrapal, Krishna and Bhajan Lal were eye witnesses of the incident of murder inside the house of first informant so their production before the Court would have been of no use and would not have thrown any light on the case. It is settled principle of law that the testimony of related witness may not be discarded merely for the reason of being relative, however, his testimony is required to be considered with extra care and caution and that the related witness may not be expected to save the real culprit and falsely implicate some other innocent person.

In the case of Vijay Kumar Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Madras and another, (2009) 12 SCC 629, the three judges Bench of Apex Court has held that:-

"merely because P.W.-1 is brother of deceased, his evidence can not be rejected when he had no reason to speak falsehood against both accused.

It is settled principle of law that relative witness would not allow real culprit to escape and implicate innocent, though his evidence has to be analysed carefully."

Recently in the case of Kamta Yadav and others Vs. State of Bihar, (2016) 16 SCC 164, the Apex court has held that:-

"once it is found that eye witnesses were present and have truthfully narrated the incident as it happened and their depositions are worth of credence, the conviction under Section 302/149 I.P.C. can be based on their testimonies even if they were related to the deceased. Only requirement is to examine and scrutinize their deposition with greater and deeper caution."

In the case of Nand Kumar Vs. State of Chattisgarh, 2015 (1) SCC 776, where several persons allegedly participated to kill the deceased J and his 2 sons B & S, the testimony of wife and daughter of deceased J (mother and sister of deceased B & S) was relied and the Apex Court held that:-

"eye witness account of occurrence by wife and daughter of deceased before whom deceased and his sons were killed was consistent, cogent and reliable - Witness closely related to victim not expected to describe the incident in graphic details giving manner of participation of accused - It is not necessary for the prosecution to examine any more eye witnesses or all the eye witnesses for proving its case."

(e) MOTIVE/FALSE IMPLICATION

Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the prosecution has failed to prove motive of appellant for committing murder of Sita Ram, his uncle-in-law. He contended that since the first informant was having illicit relations with his Jeth Sita Ram deceased on one hand and was detaining appellant's wife Smt. Rani with an intention to make her marriage elsewhere on the other hand, so there is every possibility of murder of Sita Ram deceased having been caused by some other person at the instance of wife of deceased (due to his illicit relationship with first informant) at a time when there was no one at home, and upon getting knowledge of the murder the first informant has falsely implicated the appellant to get rid of him, from the life of her daughter Rani.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. submitted that the allegations of illicit relationship between first informant and deceased as well as with regard to detention of wife of accused-appellant by first informant with intention to make her second marriage elsewhere are absolutely wrong and baseless and have been concocted to make a false defence.

Upon hearing the parties counsel, we find that the first informant has come with specific case that she was living in the house in question in Mohalla Chack Mahmood along with her daughter Uma Rani, Jeth Sita Ram, and Jeth's son Ranu while her husband Gulab Singh was in service at Moradabad, and wife of deceased was running a tea stall at Dohna. It has also been stated that about half an hour before the incident of murder of Sita Ram there was some quarrel between the appellant and his wife Rani, who were living in the neighbourhood and since the appellant had beaten his wife so the deceased being Tau of wife of appellant went to their house, admonished the accused-appellant and entered into hot talks and since his niece Smt. Rani was weeping, under rage of anger he also slapped the accused-appellant and returned back to home whereafter the appellant armed with knife entered the house and caused fatal injuries to the deceased inside the room.

It is pertinent to mention that undisputedly in our Indian culture son-in-law (Damad) has a special status and carries very great respect in the family since times immemorial and even the elderly people of family always treat him with great respect and honour. Usually best treatment is provided to him with variety of best quality foods are prepared and served on his arrival and nobody in the family may think of misbehaving with the son-in-law.

In the circumstances, the incident of slapping the appellant by his uncle-in-law, the deceased may not be taken lightly. It is quite natural that any person so slapped will feel insulted and degree of insult will be much higher/greater with reference to his respectable place in the family particularly in a case where son-in-law is slapped by his uncle-in-law. Due to annoyance of above highest degree of insult the arrival of infuriated accused-appellant to the place of deceased with knife in his hand and committing the incident in question may not be surprising. As per prosecution evidence when the appellant entered the house with knife in his hand he was shouting at deceased as to how he dared to slap him and that he will not spare him, and on coming he immediately gave fatal knife blow to deceased.

It is pertinent to mention that in cross examination at page 27 of the paper-book P.W.-1 has stated that accused-appellant beaten her daughter Smt. Rani with the slippers, upon which has been suggested to her that the deceased snatched slippers from him and beaten the accused-appellant with the same slippers. Though above suggestion has been denied but by putting above suggestion the appellant on one hand admits of beating his wife by him with slippers and on the other hand enhances the amount of his insult to much higher and greater extent for being slapped with slippers by the deceased.

It is also pertinent to mention that in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in reply to question no.15 the appellant has taken four different stands as under:-

(i) that the first informant was not sending his wife with him,

(ii) that the appellant had several times seen the first informant and the deceased in compromising position and since he made her illicit relationship with deceased public in the neighbourhood, she was feeling insulted and became inimical towards him,

(iii) that the relations between the deceased and his wife were not cordial and both were inimical to each other and wife of deceased had also moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (of which copy will be filed by him) and

(iv) The first informant was detaining his wife (wife of accused-appellant) with an intention to make her marriage elsewhere.

In respect of above four different stands taken by the accused-appellant, we analysed the prosecution evidence with great care and caution and found that the marriage between Smt. Rani and accused-appellant did take place about 8 years back and in the circumstances in absence of any evidence to the contrary it does not appear correct that a mother will spoil the 8 years old married life of her daughter by making her re-marriage elsewhere particularly when she has another unmarried daughter. The dispute between accused-appellant and his wife is also proved from the evidence on record since the times he came to Bareilly from Dharmapur after leaving his job and had forcibly taken his wife from Dharmapur to Bareilly.

As far as the allegations of strained relationship between deceased and his wife and filing of the alleged maintenance petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. by his wife, there is nothing on record to establish above allegations and there is no documentary evidence on record to show the pendency any of maintenance petition between them. In his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. the accused-appellant has stated that he will file copy of petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. but even after taking several adjournments he did not file any such paper, which could have been the best evidence to show the dispute between deceased and his wife as well as reason behind the matrimonial dispute, if any. Had there been any Maintenance Petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. on record, the allegations of alleged illicit relationship, if any, could have been found there but the accused-appellant has not filed it on record for which there is sufficient ground to draw adverse inference against him that there was no dispute between deceased and his wife and no illicit relationship of deceased with first informant.

As far as the allegations of illicit relationship between the first informant and the deceased and of repeatedly seeing them in compromising position by the accused-appellant are concerned, the above allegations appear to be totally false and incorrect on its face. It is quite impossible for a person to catch two people (under alleged illicit relationship) in compromising position repeatedly or at several times. The above allegations carry no substance and appear to have been made just for setting up a false defence.

The flimsy argument of learned Amicus Curiae for appellant that the murder of Sita Ram may also have been committed by some unknown person, hired by wife of deceased, at a time when neither P.W.-1 nor P.W.-2 nor Ranu were at home, also carries no weight.

Learned Amicus Curiae for appellant has also pointed out that as per site plan Ext.-A-12 the deceased was lying on the bed at a point shown by letter 'A' while P.W.-1 was preparing food at point 'C' and P.W.-2 Uma Rani and Ranu, the son of deceased were eating food at point 'D' & 'E' and the body of deceased was found at point 'B'. He demonstrated that though lantern is alleged to be on in the courtyard and lamp in the room where deceased was lying, but since the door of room is in the middle of wall the point 'A' may neither be visible from point 'C' where the first informant was preparing food nor from the places 'D' & 'E' as Uma Rani and Ranu would have been facing towards 'C' and point 'A' is on their back.

The above argument sounds good but carries no weight. It is pertinent to mention that to the room in question, where deceased was lying on bed and where his body was found, the only way is through the courtyard where first informant was preparing and children Uma Rani and Ranu were taking food and so when the appellant shouting at deceased entered the house from main door and went upto the room of deceased with knife in hand, he is bound to have been seen and identified by P.W.-1 & P.W.-2 and Ranu, who were there in the courtyard with sufficient source of light. It is also noteworthy that since the appellant was not a stranger rather was a member of family, there can be no reason for not identifying him. Further when after committing the incident, he ran away through the same courtyard, he was again seen and identified by prosecution witnesses. The only effect of point 'A' being not visible from point 'C' would be that the first informant may not have seen the actual manner of stabbing. It is also pertinent to mention that the first informant has stated that she along with P.W.-1, Ranu and other villagers chased the appellant after the incident but he managed to flee away so at the most merely for the reason that the first informant would not have been able to watch the manner of stabbing, the prosecution case may not be adversely affected.

In view of the discussions made above, we have come to the conclusion that there was no reason with first informant for falsely implicating her own son-in-law and the accused-appellant having been slapped and insulted by his uncle-in-law Sita Ram had sufficient motive to commit the incident in question and cause his death.

(f) CONVICTION IF LIABLE TO BE CONVERTED UNDER SECTION 304 IPC

Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant further submitted that the accused-appellant had no enmity with the deceased and may not have any intention to cause death of his uncle-in-law and is not alleged to have repeated the knife blow; that admittedly the accused-appellant was slapped by Sita Ram deceased just before the incident in question following which fatal injury is alleged to have been caused by him to the deceased; that son-in-law commands high degree of respect in the family and by slapping him, Sita Ram deceased by committing great insult, caused sudden and grave provocation to the accused-appellant due to which upon being deprived of the power of self-control he committed the incident in question; that upon causing death of Sita Ram deceased by appellant in the circumstances, his act comes within the category of offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and his case falls under Exception 1 to Section 300 I.P.C. and his conviction is liable to be converted from offence of Section 302 I.P.C. to offence of Section 304 I.P.C.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. without disputing the respectable status of son-in-law in Indian families, contended that the evidence on record shows that the accused-appellant gave single knife blow causing cavity deep injury on base of the neck of deceased which proved to be fatal; that the medical officer P.W.-3 has stated that the cavity deep injury on left side base of neck was the cause of death; that in the circumstances the accused-appellant had no reason to repeat knife blow, while he had already caused fatal injury on vital part in first attempt; that the place where accused-appellant was slapped and the place where he caused fatal injury to Sita Ram deceased are at some distance which indicates that armed with knife he came with an intention to take revenge and caused death of Sita Ram, so his act of causing death of Sita Ram amounts to an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and not under Section 304 I.P.C.

The provisions of Section 300 I.P.C. and Exception 1 are being reproduced as under:-

"300. Murder.--Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or--

(Secondly)--If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or--

(Thirdly)--If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be in­flicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or--

(Fourthly)--If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.

Exception-1-- When culpable homicide is not murder- Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident.

The above exception is subject to the following provisos:-

First- That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person.

Secondly- That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant.

Thirdly- That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defense.

Explanation. - Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact.

Upon hearing parties counsel and perusal of record, we find that it is not disputed that in Indian culture the status of son-in-law commands high degree of respect and honour in the family and ordinarily nobody can think of misbehaving or manhandling him. Undisputedly there was a quarrel between accused-appellant and his wife, in which the accused-appellant had beaten his wife Rani and when Sita Ram deceased intervened, some hot talks took place between him and accused-appellant following which Sita Ram deceased also slapped the accused-appellant. It can be understood that upon being slapped by uncle-in-law the accused-appellant may have felt high degree of insult, as he would have been finding himself justified in beating his wife and interference of uncle-in-law Sita Ram unwarranted. The evidence on record shows that when Sita Ram returned to his home after slapping the accused-appellant, immediately thereafter he followed him with a knife in his hand and committed the incident in question. The immediate re-action of accused-appellant rules out possibility of any pre-planning. In the circumstances, possibility of committal of incident in question by accused-appellant due to sudden and grave provocation caused by deceased and upon having deprived of the power of self-control for giving reply of SLAP of deceased with KNIFE, may also not be ruled out.

Upon consideration of entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and careful analysis of evidence on record, we find that the evidence on record shows that accused-appellant was slapped by his uncle-in-law, Sita Ram deceased and considering the respectable position of son-in-law in Indian families we find that by slapping accused-appellant Sita Ram deceased by causing high degree of insult to son-in-law, the accused-appellant, caused to him grave and sudden provocation, depriving him of the power of self-control upon which infuriated accused-appellant armed with knife entered the house of deceased and committed his death by giving fatal knife blow on vital part of his body, left side base of neck. In the circumstances provocation may not be considered to have been sought by the accused-appellant upon voluntarily provoking the deceased as an execuse for killing or doing harm to Sita Ram deceased. In the circumstances even if he caused knife injury with or without any intention to cause death of Sita Ram but he caused injury with the knowledge that it is likely to cause his death. However, upon causing death of Sita Ram by him in the circumstances since the provocation was grave and sudden enough, it prevents his offence from amounting to murder and so we find that he has committed the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder in view of provisions of Exception 1 of Section 300 I.P.C. and is not liable to be held guilty of offence of murder under Section 300 I.P.C. but is liable to be held guilty for offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 299 I.P.C. punishable under Section 304 I.P.C.

In view of the discussions made above, we have come to the conclusion that learned trial court has acted wrongly and illegally in holding the accused-appellant guilty of offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him accordingly without taking into account the admitted circumstances of incident on record as well as the provisions of Exception-1 to Section 300 I.P.C. Though the learned trial court has rightly held the accused-appellant guilty of causing death of Sita Ram deceased but for not considering the provisions of Exception-I to Section 300 I.P.C. the impugned order of conviction and sentence of accused-appellant under Section 300 I.P.C. deserves to be set-aside. The appeal is liable to be allowed and the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence under Section 300 I.P.C. is liable to be set-aside and is required to be modified by holding the accused-appellant guilty under Section 304 Part-I I.P.C. and sentencing him accordingly. Considering the fact that the appellant is not said to be a person of criminal antecedents, we find that instead of sentencing him with imprisonment for life under Section 304 Part-I I.P.C., a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and fine of Rs.10,000/- would be adequate to meet the ends of justice in the circumstances.

The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction of accused-appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentence of life imprisonment are set-aside and the same is modified by holding him guilty of offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I I.P.C. The appellant is held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under section 304 Part I IPC and is sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in case of default in payment of fine with simple imprisonment for an additional period of 6 months. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and he is ordered to surrender before the trial court forthwith and to undergo remaining period of sentence.

The material exhibits, if any, shall be disposed off after statutory period in accordance with rules.

We appreciate the valuable assistance rendered by learned amicus curiae Sri S.D. Jadaun, Advocate.

Let the lower court record be sent back to court below forthwith along with a copy of this judgment, for ascertaining necessary compliance.

Order Date :-24/04/2018

Kpy

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 34 of 1988

Appellant :- Shamsher

Respondent :- State Of U.P.

Counsel for Appellant :- P.N. Misra

Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A.

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.

Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

Sri S.D. Jadaun, Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae in this case.

Registrar General of this Court is directed to pay an honorarium of Rs.11,000/- to the learned amicus curiae for rendering effective assistance in the matter. The said amount be paid to him within two months.

Order Date :- 24/04/2018

Kpy